pvxfandomcom-20200214-history
User talk:Da
I'll be looking forward to both the /cry and the productive comments. ···User_talk:Daññy 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :Should be done already tbh. Keeping builds in user space should be done until they are completed and tested by the author preventing theoycrafting. 17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ::Gets a yes vote from me. Great write up. I hope the admins are looking very carefully. Selket Shadowdancer 18:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Real Vetting --Frosty Mc Admin 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :..doesn't settle anything outlined here? wat ···User_talk:Daññy 18:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :point of this is that Real Vetting hasn't worked the way it was designed to for at least a very long time, if not from day one. ···User_talk:Daññy 18:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ::Real Vetting is pointless because of vote removal, it always has been. Most especially because of the topic brought up on the main page here. If you store the best builds on the database and leave theorycraft in userspaces there should be no need for real vetting. Selket Shadowdancer 18:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :::I'd disagree that it's unnecessary. It's useful for labelling builds as Great and Good, but it wouldn't be needed to just loltrash builds and make users who don't understand PvX QQ. Also, it would give us a reason to ban Luke on sight. ···User_talk:Daññy 18:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ::::Well if the plan is to just store Meta then they should all be Great or Good anyway and shouldn't need catergorising outside of being Meta builds. Selket Shadowdancer 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :::::d. this is in good, because it isn't great. it is run and can be used effectively, but it's not nearly as overpowered as this can be. ;o ···User_talk:Daññy 18:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ::::::Danny that build is a terrible theorycraft that has never been run and was over-rated by what I would like to call the terrible pvx-circle jerk. --Frosty Mc Admin 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ::::::Also Real-Vetting would work if we had Build Masters, unforunately people are so bad on this wiki that they rage because it's such a disaster. --Frosty Mc Admin 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :::::::Buildmasters fail cause they are still human and get sucked in to changing votes as authour's jerk them off. imo 18:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ::::::::For instance say that LUKE (yes I guess I fit in that category somehow) somehow comes up with a great build....it is possible...most people will vote it down cause it is Luke. A Buildmaster should be able to see past that and vote wipe it into good/great. 18:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Build masters dont really act as the independant checks they are meant to be since they needed to be voted in by upteen circlejerks in the first place [[User:Athrun Feya|'Athrun Feya']] [[User Talk:Athrun Feya|'agro']] 18:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :::::::::Actually the build masters would probably trash it (because its luke) then post the builds themselves (if the cbf). Drahgal Meir 18:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :::::::::Athrun hit the nail on the head to be honest. Selket Shadowdancer 18:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Point being that this would prevent most of the garbage and I think that is what we all want Danny is trying to get it done. 19:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC) My point with real vetting was that Theorycrafts that ARE bad won't get vetted anyway, and somebody who genuinely has a good idea (fucking rare) has a chance to show people said idea. Also who comes onto pvx (who is looking for a build) and goes to the trial or testing page :/. --Frosty Mc Admin 19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC) : and my point was that this is a wiki and we shouldn't document it officially until it is run. also, go through the pve section and a lot of the pvp section. there are still a large number of terrible theorycrafts. and trial and testing builds still clutter up searches. ···User_talk:Daññy 19:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ::The problem is, this seems to be insinuating, that if it's not a meta build, it doesn't belong in the build namespace (that may not be the intention, but that's how I'm interpreting this). The problem I see with this is that there are builds that we store that aren't meta, but are still run. I need only look at a handful of the farming section for examples tbh. There are probably a decent number of builds there, of which about 5 will be meta and the rest not, Yet frequently I see people running (and I myself run) some of those builds that aren't meta. ::You also seem to be confusing the purpose of PvXwiki. It's a wiki to store Guild wars build, not a place to document meta builds only. Real vetting was introduced so that the crap that doesn't work isn't stored, and the crap that does work is stored in the appropriate place, as deemed by the community. We should not impose restrictions upon what people can put up for vetting. If you think a builds a theorycraft that doesn't work, then tag it for WELL, and me or another admin will review it when we go on a deleting spree. ::If you prefer you can create a new tag for all I care that says "This has been suggested to be a theory craft that doesn't work. If a consensus to keep the build in the build namespace isn't reached in 3 days the build will be moved to the authors userspace". ::I feel I need to stress the point again, just because something isn't run, doesn't make it crap. Hell you can say that we don't affect the meta, but I bet you a lot of people will come here looking for various builds to run something specific. Again I direct you to the farming section, I guarantee there are builds there that were probably barley run until they were on PvX. ::I'd like to say this though, i don't think everything here is unusable (for lack of a better term/word). Personaly i like the little Addendum, and i think that should be added to whatever policies necessary, and that perhaps me and other admins should become a bit stricter in enforcing policies (i know we say we don't want to be all carebare and everything, but frankly half the stuff that gets said and done here makes me depressed when I remember what PvX used to be like) ::I also quite like the point about cross class vetting, how PvE should be slightly more lenient and PvP should perhaps not tolerate it at all. :: ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 20:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :::Auron hacked Phen's account. --Frosty Mc Admin 20:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ::: owow. huge wall. anyway, why keep things people aren't going to use? if you use it often and it's on here, that probably means other people use it often, which makes it meta. I would have no problem letting something sit in Trial so it can be seen, but as things are, farming builds don't change dramatically and most theorycrafts end up never being run. :::as far as welling for theorycrafts goes, so far, since there isn't a policy, most people just /cry and some autist comes along and removes it. if we could add that to PW:VETTING, I'd be much happier, as would a number of people. :::I'm also not against splitting this into two policies. We could just push the Addendum part through in a day or so, I bet. ···User_talk:Daññy 20:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ::::I also wouldn't have a problem with a move to userspace tag if it would be enforced. it just gets boring seeing a dozen bad theorycrafts after every update. =/ ···User_talk:Daññy 20:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :::The Problem I have with the Well tag is that authours QQ when they see it and remove it and a revet wars begins to a point where you give up. WELL is suppose to bring out discussions instead it turns into "you're an autist" match and who has the biggest member. I do think this will help admins a ton for anybody can move builds. 21:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ::::I've decided to respond point by point. All the ones for Danny are first and the last couple are Xtreme's points ::::"why keep things people aren't going to use?" :::::Like I said, you can get builds that are still run quite a lot, but because say they're not quite as efficient or they're used in an odd area, they're not as good as meta builds, strictly speaking this will only apply to PvE, because this is where your cross class vetting comes in (I.E. a perma may be meta, but an obby tank could be a viable, but less effective alternative. The perma being meta the obby tank being the other non-meta build). ::::"as far as welling for theorycrafts goes, so far, since there isn't a policy" :::::It's in WELL itself, clearly inferior builds (which is what you're suggesting theorycraft is) can be tagged with WELL for review by an admin. ::::(linked to the previous comment) "most people just /cry and some autist comes along and removes it" :::::For the people who cry, tell them that they should either come up with a valid reason why an admin shouldn't delete it (I.E. it's not a dupe because that's used for XYZ and this bar uses skills ABC instead of IJK). For the people who remove it, revert them and as i jsut said, tell them to come up with a valid reason for it to be removed, if they persists report it on the AN, or to a currently active admin. ::::"I'm also not against splitting this into two policies" :::::I have no objection against that, I'll comment on them and let you hear my thoughts on the matters ::::"I also wouldn't have a problem with a move to userspace tag if it would be enforced" :::::What's to enforce? stick the tag on, if in 3 days the majority decide that it shouldn't be put up for vetting someone can move it, it doesn't take an admin to move a couple of pages =p (as long as people remember to tag the redirects for delete so we don't have to go through the mass of move logs or the special pages (until I've got round to clearing them)) ::::"it just gets boring seeing a dozen bad theorycrafts after every update" :::::I'm aware, there's little we can do about the rush of submitted builds around update time, thankfully it's only once a month =p (even if builds are still being submitted a week later). ::::Xtreme's points now "The Problem I have with the Well tag is that authours QQ when they see it and remove it and a revet wars begins to a point where you give up" :::::Like I said, revert them. Tell them Authors aren't allowed to remove the tag (like it says on the template), and tell them that instead of just removing it, they should state their reasoning for why the build shouldn't be deleted on the builds talk page. Again, if they continue to remove it, post on the AN or contact an active admin to sort it out =p. ::::"WELL is suppose to bring out discussions instead it turns into "you're an autist" match and who has the biggest member." :::::True it is. If you see it deteriorating into an e-peen contest, again stick it on the AN, contact an active admin (or me if you could wait for me to log on), and the issue will be resolved, I'll keep an eye on things personally ;). ::::I think that's my rant done =p. :::: ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 22:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) :::::Admins need to apply more liberal use of the banstick in cases regarding policy violations. Right now, 1RV is pretty much a dead policy, as are, well, most of the policies. We're lacking a lot of actual enforcement, which I touched on a little. People simply ignore policies because they know they won't be banned unless they vandalize something badly. We all know NPA is just a huge joke, but the build policies should and do need to be enforced. : :::::When it comes to the vetting stuff, I've got no problem keeping class variations, but only if they're significantly different (like the perma and obby tanks). : :::::Besides those things, I don't think WELL gets handled properly. It should mention that it should remain tagged until sufficient decisive discussion has taken place. : :::::I'll work on separating this into two policies tomorrow. :> Hopefully my response here wasn't too abbreviated. : :::::···User_talk:Daññy 22:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC) "Admins need to apply more liberal use of the banstick in cases regarding policy violations" :I agree we do, and it helps if people post policy violations on the AN (at least it'd help me >.>). "When it comes to the vetting stuff, I've got no problem keeping class variations, but only if they're significantly different" :Good to know, I wasn't saying keep a different version of the same build but with different primaries =p (well unless it makes a big difference). "Besides those things, I don't think WELL gets handled properly. It should mention that it should remain tagged until sufficient decisive discussion has taken place." :I'm unsure of how to respond to this point but i'll do my best. Strictly speaking WELL tags can be resolved by 2 means: ::#The community discuss it on the build page, and reach a decision on what to do with the build, and implement that decision (e.g. they decide to let it be vetted and remove the WELL tag, or think it should be deleted so add a delete tag (or leave the WELL tag but change the reasoning to point out it's decided to be deleted)) ::#An admin comes along and reviews the WELL tag, and decideds what the best course of action is (e.g. it's tagged as a dupe of Build X, the admin agrees and deletes it, or it's not and they remove the WELL tag (or it's somewhere in-between and merge them =p)) :Like I said this is a tricky one to respond to, but hopefully that helps. I created a DPL list which shows the WELL candidates and when they were tagged (a few weeks ago actually), we could say that only tags that are X days old (3 or 5 seem like good numbers) should be reviewed by/deleted by admins (this seems like a good solution to me). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 23:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC) :About the well tag, what I mean is that, currently, most people believe that any user other than the author can remove a well tag if they feel it doesn't belong there. We need to clarify in the tag that users cannot remove the tag until a concensus is reached, or until an admin decides, whichever happens first. It would be nice if WELL tags had a Grace period of sorts, too. ···User_talk:Daññy 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Just to clarify This is probably the most important part of the policy - how users and situations are handled when dealing with theorycrafts. ···User_talk:Daññy 19:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :As well as the addendum, of course. ···User_talk:Daññy 19:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC) bump ^ ···User_talk:Daññy 21:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC) :obaby danny wrote down what i've been telling people for ~a year now. You're the best danny <3--Goldenstar 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)